THR Resurfacing

ConceptBirmingham Hip Resurfacing

 

Femur

- removal of femoral head cartilage

- resurfacing with metal

- cemented / uncemented

 

Acetabulum

- standard technique

 

Bearing surface

- metal on metal

 

Indications

 

Relatively young man (40 - 50)

OA

 

Absolute Contra-indications

 

Severe bone loss femoral head

Large femoral neck cyst

Small acetabulum

 

Relative Contra-indications

 

Osteoporosis

Age > 65

BMI > 35

 

Caution

 

RA

Female

AVN femoral head

 

Advantages (many theoretical)

 

1.  Bone preservation

- preserves femoral bone stock

- however makes acetabular preparation more difficult

 

2.  Improved stress transfer to proximal femur

- less proximal stress shielding

- improved proximal bone density

 

3.  Reduced dislocation rates

- heads 36-54 have reduced rates compared with 22-32

- can occur though if poor technique or component loosening

 

Dislocated Birmingham Hip ResurfacingDislocated Birmingham Resurfacing

 

4.  Better kinetics

- faster walking speeds

- may be better ROM

- possible better proprioception

- may be element of selection bias (i.e. is done in younger, fitter patients)

 

4.  Easier revision of femoral component

- better bone stock

- simply recut and use stem

 

6.  Possible improved longetivity

- very low wear rates metal on metal

 

Disadvantages

 

1.  Poor modularity

- difficult to adjust LLD

- difficult to adjust offset

- patients with very abnormal abnormality better off with conventional THA

 

2.  Not suitable for elderly / poor bone stock

- increased risk femoral neck fracture

 

3.  Femoral neck fracture

 

 

4.  Metal ions

- in serum, RBC, urine

 

Problems

- risk metal sensitivity

- risk carcinogenesis / teratogenesis

- CI in woman of child bearing age

 

5.  Loosening

 

Complications

 

Femoral Neck Fracture

 

Incidence 0-4%

- 1.5% in a study of 3500 BHR in Australia (JBJS Br 2005)

- early in learning curve

- early in prosthesis life

 

Risk Factors

- decreased bone mass / osteoporosis

- elderly

- inflammatory arthritis

- females (risk x2)(AJR)

- femoral head and neck cysts

- femoral neck notching

- varus femoral component (< 130o neck shaft angle)

- cup impingement on neck

- improper implant seating

- AVN femoral Head

 

BHR femoral neck notchingBHR Femoral Neck Notching 2

 

Revision

- relatively simple

- recut neck

- femoral implant with large metal head

 

Revision BHR

 

Early loosening

 

Machining

 

Initially due to poor early manufacturing

- decreased clearance

- inadequate polar bearing

- increased peripheral bearing, seizing, cold welding and loosening

 

Modern machining

- small surface asperities

- improved fluid film lubrication

- polar bearing with small clearances

- very low wear and little particle production

 

Causes

 

A.  Oversized heads / notching

 

BHR Oversized Femoral HeadBHR Loosening

 

B.  Varus Femoral Component

 

BHR Valgus v Varus Femoral Component

 

C.  Femoral head AVN

 

Due to extensive releases required to expose / surgically dislocate femoral head

 

BHR Femoral Head AVN

 

D.  Open Acetabular Component

 

Theorised to cause point loading

- increased metal wear

- best to close cup

 

BHR Open v Closed Acetabular Component

 

E.  Other

 

BHR Acetabular Component Protrusio

 

Australian Joint Registry 2010

 

13 300 procedures

 

Best outcome

- male < 65 with OA

- able to get > 50 mm head size

- 3.9% 9 year

 

Revision rate

 

Cumulative

- 7.2% 9 years for OA

 

Birmingham Resurfacing

- 6.2% 9 year

 

Reasons for revision

- fracture 36%

- loosening 33%

- metal sensitivity 7%

 

Revision by diagnosis 7 years

- OA 5.8%

- DDH 14%

- AVN 6%

 

Revision by prosthesis

- BHR 96.5% 5 year

 

Revision by age 7 years

- < 55     5.6%

- 55 - 64  5.8%

- > 65     7.3%

 

Revision by sex 7 years

- male 4.5%

- female 9.3%

 

Revision by head size 7 years

- < 44mm:    13.8%

- 45 - 49mm: 8.8%

- 50 - 54mm: 3.7%

- > 55mm:     2.2%